16 Mar 2009
MIKITASOV V COLLINS HC WHA CIV-2008-488-000053
- Citation
- openlaw-c16041c1_ee60_4224_a60d_0d345bbf1603.pdf
- Court
- High Court
On the evidence the Court found a real risk of dissipation based on unexplained transfers and conduct; the Court found a good arguable case that clause 6.2 could impose liability where a vendor elected to complete works originally requiring consent without obtaining one (office and heated pool), but did not find a good arguable case for an implied term of disclosure of weathertightness; accordingly the Court granted a limited freezing order attaching to the first $30,000 of net sale proceeds of Lot 3 to protect the applicant's arguable position.